Economy and Society in Vojvodina During

8/19/2019 Economy and Society in Vojvodina During

1/18

95

UDC: 316.42:334(497.113)”1941/1945”Gábor DemeterMTA BTKInstitute of History Budapest

[email protected]

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN VOJVODINADURING THE HUNGARIAN RULE (1941-1944):

A COMPARATIVE REGIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

Abstract: This study investigates the effect of Hungarian rule on the local society in regionalcontext using social geographical methods focusing on the challenges that the structural changes and theintegration into a new economic and educational structure caused. In order to measure the role ofVojvodina in the Hungarian economic system and the development stage of the socio-economic life,

based on data from the Hungarian Statistical Bureau, several variables were selected to compare thedevelopment level of the towns in Vojvodina and in Hungary. Such were the number of periodicalsissued, the number of sports clubs referring to the self-organising and self-financing ability of thecommunity, or the value produced by small enterprises, the invested capital, etc.

Key words: Vojvodina, economy, education, capital investment, production efficiency, socialindicators, small enterprises.

1. The role of Vojvodina in Yugoslavia

Such an investigation drawn up in the introduction requires the analysis of the role ofVojvodina in former Yugoslavia between 1921-1939 in order to make the two era comparable(although the variables used did not coincide with each other). It is well-known, that Vojvodinawas among the wealthier and developed regions of Yugoslavia, especially consideringagriculture as it is confirmed by the data of Tomasevich summarized in table 1. 1 Net income ofarable land was among the highest, husbandry and arable lands were overrepresented comparedto other regions. But neither the redistribution of land nor the extensive agriculture couldresolve most of the problems in the Yugoslavian state stemming from the high fertility rateresulting in overpopulation (table 2). These unresolved problems included the regionalinequalities regarding land-structure, differences in the per capita volume production of small-

1 See more on this topic in László Bíró , A jugoszláv állam, 1918-1939, Budapest 2010, 201-237.


2/18

96

holdings, and scarcity of land compared to labour force as figure 1-2 shows. Banovina Dunavwas characterized by relative good indicators compared to other banovine, it was among theleast indebted regions regarding the % of indebted households (although the overall and percapita value of debt was high, but land revenues were also), and it was also under overtaxation

regarding direct taxes compared to the state average because of its higher revenues.

Drina

agrarian wage-earners over20%

less than 160 dinars income/ha and estates under 2 hectares exceed 40%labour surplus over 50% in agrarian sector

industrial workers over the county average, 11%

Sava

Vrbas

Primorje

Zeta

Vardar

Drava

Dunav

Beograd

Morava

Figure 1. Relationship between the regional inequalities ofagricultural production, welfare and indebtedness (see table 1-2)


3/18

97

Sava

Vrbas

Drina

Morava

Beograd

Dunav

crop production under 400 kg/capita

Drava

Primorje

Zeta

Vardar

% of households buying crop over 50%

% of indebted households under 33%indebtedness / production ratio is great

Figure 2. Relationship between the regional inequalities ofagricultural production, welfare and indebtedness (see table 1-2)

Table 1. General features of agriculture in the different regions of Yugoslavia in the 1930s’

Banovinaarea in %

of the total

cultivated ploughland in

% pasture in %

ploughland in% of regional

total

animalsin 1000

meatunits

animalsin % ofthe total

industrial population

in %

%of indebtedhouseholds

net incomeof arableland in

dinar/ha

net incomeof gardensin dinar/ha

net incomeof pasturesin dinar/ha

averageincome indinar/ha

Drava 6,5 4,6 7 24 544 6,5 22 46 350 560 60 160

Drina 11 11 9 32 946 11 8 44 240 780 40 160

Dunav 12,5 28,2 6 74 1409 17 13,5 22 980 1100 260 760

Morava 10,3 10,3 9 33 718 8,6 7 26 270 520 70 150

Primorje 8 4 14 17 508 6 6,5 52 150 210 10 55

Sava 16,4 17 15,5 34 1532 18,4 12 39 380 875 60 220

Vardar 15 11,4 16,6 26 1106 13 9,5 17 250 800 40 100

Vrbas 7,7 9,3 5 40 765 9,2 5 59 200 680 30 110

Zeta 12,5 4,3 18 11 802 9,6 6 44 133 340 20 40

Beograd 0,2 0,1 0 32 10 0,1 33 Source: Jozo Tomasevich, Peasants,Politics, and Economic Change in

Yugoslavia, London 1955, 274-304. Yugoslavia 100 100 100 33 8340 100 11 35


4/18

98

Table 2. Overpopulation and its consequences in regional comparison

Banovina

agricultural

populationfor 100 ha

in 1921

overpopulatio

n in %

compared toagricultural

population in

1938

population

increase (%)measured to

cultivated

land

agricultural

wage-

earners,daily

labourers

(%)

population

pressure:increase

in %

1931-41

households

buyingcrop to

subsist in

% (1932)

average

indebtednessin dinar/ha

(indebted

lands)

average

indebtednessof indebted

households

indebtedness

measured toyearly crop

production

(%)

directtax/person

total

indebtednessin million

current

dinars

Drava 197 58 -2 22 14,5 47 5500 19000 115 108 1192

Drina 136 52 23 3 59 56 1500 7000 15 48 625

Dunav 82 2,5 0 22 18 30 3100 19000 14 1641683

(25%)

Morava 146 52 14 2 41 48 1600 5500 12 45 320

Primorje 235 68 7 5 24 95 7500 13000 63 35 839

Sava 151 49 4 10 23 49 2300 7300 15 117 1185Vardar 135 46 9,5 5 39 47 1500 6300 19 43 209

Vrbas 138 42 0 4 46 61 1000 3900 9 31 328

Zeta 231 66 3,5 4 37 78 3000 8600 37 42 496

Yugoslavia 135 44 7 9,5 2500 9800 18 98 6880

Source: J. Tomasevich, Peasants, Politics, 322. and Statistique agricole annuelle 1938 . Beograd, 1939. andMilan Komadinić, Problem seljačkih dugova, Beograd 1934, 60-64.

2. Vojvodina in Hungary

Compared to N-Transylvania and S-Slovakia where a 10% population increase wasmeasured within 10 years between 1930-1940, in Vojvodina the natural population increase of50 thousand persons was eliminated by losses oriogonating from migration. The returningHungarian government confiscated more than 100 thousand hectares of land, one third of thesecame from the estates of the 62 dobrovoljac-settlements, which was redistributed between the3200 csángó families of Bukovina (Romania) who settled down substituting the expatriated6900 Slavic families. 12 thousand of the dobrovoljac were forced to live in camps, as theGermans refused to allow their entrance in the area of occupied Serbia. According to Sajti thenumber of expatriated range from 35 to 50 thousand. Those, who were deprived of their landsduring the Yugoslavian period were given their estates back.2

Investigations on the education system gives a good insight into the demands of the

local sociaty and to the preference-system and aspirations of central political will. The localadministration was filled up with clerks arriving from Hungary. The shortage in Hungarian-speaking teachers was handled by directing 1300 teachers to Vojvodina (in order to tackle thegrowing tensions within the middle class in Hungary) to teach at the numerous reinstalled

2 See details in: Enikő Sajti, Impériumváltások, revízió, kisebbség. Magyarok a Délvidéken 1918-1947 . Budapest 2004,217. and 254. and Enikő Sajti, Székely telepítés és nemzetiségpolitika a Bácskában – 1941 ,http://mek.niif.hu/01200/01275/. March, 2009


5/18

99

Hungarian schools. This action was carried out partly to mitigate the pressure coming from thelarge middle class of the ’Motherland’ exerted on the central government of Hungary, but

partly to ’domesticate’ the population. Balogh Ányos, state official responsible for thereinstallment of Hungarian education in Vojvodina, wrote that the Hungarians have „strongself-esteem and self-consciousness, also bearing competences that the Serbs do not own as acommunity, only individually. No matter how intelligent, hard-working and good tradesmen

the Serbs are, in this suddenly gained leadership above other nations the Serbdom was unable

to show the virtues of the balanced leading-nations, like generosity and understanding,

therefore failed to secure the trust of other nations and their affinity to Serbdom in this

oversized empire.”3 He also accused Hungarians of Vojvodina by revengefulness, impatience,

whose sentiments should and could be restrained only by the careful administering of officialsstemming from the ’Motherland’ and not from the local elite. 4 The Hungarian governmentreasoned the growing centralisation with the impatience of the local elit and with the will tohinder the escalation of tensions. The activity of teachers was revised: from among the 57Slavic teachers of the Óbecse (Bečej) district only 37 were allowed to continue teaching.Indeed it was a quite high ratio because in the secondary academic grammar school ofÚjverbász only one teacher was kept, while in the secondary academic grammar school ofZenta (Senta) only 4 out of the 14-18, the ratio in Szenttamás (Srbobran) was 2/13.5

This policy of Hungarian authorities caused an unrest and disappointment among themembers of the local elite (but at least, this was not targeted against the Serbs). 58% of the 98thousand pupils in the elementary schools were not Hungarian-speaking coinciding with theethnic composition. Hungarian-speaking students in secondary schools in 1942-1943 wereoverrepresented compared to the ethnic proportion. The proportion of Hungarians wasespecially high in secondary trading schools owing to the land reforms in Yugoslavia that werenot favourable for Hungarians, referring to a re-stratification of Hungarians owing to the

shortage of land.

6

Serbs were overrepresented in agricultural schools.

3 Ányos Balogh, A délvidéki szellem kialakulásának tényezői, Délvidéki szemle 2, 1943/8. November, 357.4 Á. Balogh, op.cit. 356-358.5 Enikő Sajti, Impériumváltások, revízió, kisebbség, 243.6 Local Germans pursuited one-child strategy, thus were able to avoid the fragmentation of estates, maintaining theirwelfare. The result of this strategy was the diminution of their ethnic proportion.


6/18

100

Table 3. Ethnic distribution of pupils in occupied Vojvodina

e t h n i c i t y

i n 1 9 1 0

a n d 1 9 4 1

%

4 2 / 3 9

1 8 / 1 6

2 6 / 2 0

6 4 , 5

E t h n i c

d a t a

r e f e r t o

t o t a l a n d

n o t t o

s c h o o l -

a g e d

p o p u l a t i

o n

* w i t h o u t i n d u s t r i a l p r i m a r y s c h o o

l s ,

* * w i t h o u t t h e E a s t e r n T r a d e A c a d e m y

S o u r c e :

Á n y o s B a l o g h ,

A d é l v i d é k i s z e l l e m k i

a l a k u l á s á n a k t é n y e z ő i , D é l v i d é k i s z e m l e 2 ,

1 9 4 3 / 8 .

N o v e m b e r , 3 5 6 - 3 7 0 .

( % )

5 9 , 7

7 , 5

2 2 , 6

5 , 5

2 , 5

1 , 7

0 , 6

0 , 0

0 , 0

1 0 0 , 0

h i g h

s c h o o l s * *

a n d

t e a c h e r s ’

4 1 2

5 2

1 5 6

3 8

1 7

1 2 4 0 0

6 9 0

( % )

7 1 , 2

1 0 , 0

1 3 , 5

3 , 9

0 , 3

0 , 5

0 , 8

0 , 0

0 , 0

1 0 0 , 0

S e c o n -

d a r y

t r a d e

s c h o o l

4 7 0

6 6

8 9

2 6 2 3 5 0 0

6 6 0

( %

)

4 6 , 4

2 8 , 6

1 0 , 4

6 , 8

2 , 3

1 , 3

1 , 0

0 , 0

1 , 6

1 0 0

, 0

S e c o n -

d a r y

i n d u s t r i a l

s c h o o l

1 4 3

8 8

3 2

2 1 7 4 3 0 5

3 0 8

( % )

5 2 , 6

1 7 , 7

1 8 , 7

4 , 1

1 , 4

1 , 4

1 , 1

0 , 0

2 , 1

1 0 0 , 0

S e c o n -

d a r y

a c a d e m i c

g r a m m a r

2 9 0 0

9 7 5

1 0 3 0

2 2 5

7 5

7 6

5 9 0

1 1 8

5 5 1 0

( % )

5

3 , 2

6

, 8

2

6 , 1

4

, 0

2

, 4

0

, 2

0

, 5

0

, 0

0

, 8

1 0

0 , 0

4 - 1 2

g r a d e

s c h o o l

3 7 8 0

4 8 0

1 8 5 0

2 8 5

1 6 7

1 5

3 7 0 6

0 7 1 7 0

( % )

5 3 , 1

2 4 , 6

5 , 2

9 , 2

1 , 6

0 , 0

6 , 2

0 , 0

0 , 0

1 0 0 , 0

p r i m a r y

t r a d e

s c h o o l *

1 6 2

7 5

1 6

2 8 5 0 1

9 0 0 3 0 5

( % )

4 2 , 2

1 9 , 3

1 8 , 5

6 , 2

4 , 4

2 , 1

0 , 4

0 , 7

0 , 2

1 0 0 , 0

p r i m a r y

s c h o o l

4 1 4 0 0

1 9 0 0 0

1 8 2 0 0

6 1 0 0

4 3 0 0

2 1 0 0

3 5 0

7 3 0

1 8 0

9 8 2 0 0

H u n g a r i a n

S e r b i a n

G e r m a n

B u n e v a c

S l o v a k i a n

R u s i n

C r o a t i a n

G y p s y

J e w

A l t o g e t h e r


7/18

101

Many Serbs studied in Hungarian-language institutions, because among the 335 schoolsof Bács-Bodrog County (without the Baja district), there were only 21 Serbian schools (10%,while the proportion of Serbs in Vojvodina was 22%), while 175 (52%) pure Hungarian-speaking schools did exist at the same time beside the 17 German, 5 Bunevac, 3 Slovakian

institutions. More than 300 Serbs (30% of the group), 200 Germans attended Hungarian-language secondary grammar schools. The students/teacher ratio was great, but not greater thanin Hungary (48 for primary schools, 19 for secondary academic grammar schools). Of course,there were anomalies especially among the Csángó newcomers where student/teacher rationexceeded 200 in some cases.

Table 4. Indicators of education in occupied Vojvodina in 1942-ben

school classroom teacher boys girlsstudent/teacher

teacher/classroom

teacher/school

student/school

primaryschools

335 1444 2035 49800 48400 48 1,4 6,1 293

trade school* 3 9 24 300 *** 13 2,7 8,0 1004-12 grade

school24 142 228 3052 3622 29 1,6 9,5 278

secondaryacademic

12 139 286 3780 1730 19 2,1 23,8 459

secondaryindustrial

6 17 54 98 210 6 3,2 9,0 51,3

secondarytrade

3 19 50 400 250 13 2,6 16,7 217

college 4 675 *** 0,0 169

TradeAcademy

1 2 27 97 16 4 13,5 27,0 113

*without industrial primary schools

Source: Á. Balogh, op.cit. 356-370.

In order to measure the development stage of the socio-economic life in Vojvodina,indicators referring to the self-organising and self-financing ability of the community, like thenumber of periodicals issued, the number of sports clubs or the value produced by smallenterprises, the invested capital, etc. in Vojvodina were compared to that of measured inHungary.

Regarding public accession to information Bács-Bodrog County (Vojvodina attached toHungary) represented the Hungarian average. More than 40 periodicals were issued in thecounty, while in the neighboring Csongrád it was 41, in Baranya only 19. The number of

periodicals was 9 in Novi Sad, 4-4 in Subotica and Sombor, but Apatin, Kanžija, Bačka Topolaand Senta also run 2-2 dailies or periodicals. Only 3 of them were in Serbian. (As acomparison: in 1942 Szeged had 32, Pécs 18, Debrecen 23, Miskolc15, Cluj 41 periodicals,while in the northern peripheries in Nové Zámky, Rožnava and in Eger 4.).7

The 39 existing sports clubs put the county into the 3rd place (Békés 47, Heves 32,while in the neighboring Baranya it was only 9, in Csongrád 10). From among these 26 were

7 Dezső Elekes, A szellemi kultúra, különösen az időszaki sajtó számbavételének problémái, Magyar StatisztikaiSzemle, 1943/4, 169-170.


8/18

102

established between the 2 world wars. After 1941, 21 clubs were re-established, 9 continued tooperate, while other 9 ceased to exist. Subotica had 17 sports clubs lagging behind theneighboring Szeged (31), but overtaking Pécs (14) and Novi Sad (8) or Cluj (15). Sombor had5 clubs, like Satu Mare or Užgorod.8 This meant altogether 4800 members in Vojvodina

(including those 1300 who forgot to pay their annual contribution), while in Szeged alone thenumbers exceeded 4000 men and 1500 women, in Pécs 3400 men and 750 women. Suboticawith its 1300 members was no match for these organisations.9 Of course these sports clubs inthe ’Motherland’ served as basis and instrument for the revisionist activity and often offered

limited-level paramilitary training. This is confirmed by the fact, that sports clubs inVojvodina had averagely 100 members, while Hungarian clubs 200.10

These above mentioned parameters indicated the inner strength and mobility of thesociety, while comparative data on invested capital, industrial workshops, enterprises set outthe role of Vojvodina in the national economy. The average density was 4.4 factories for 100km2 in the Trianon-Hungary, while in Vojvodina it was only 2.8, overtaking southern Slovakiawith its 2.2, and northern Transylvania with its 1.1 factory/100 km2. If the number of industrialworkers (working in factories) is measured to the population, the 1.3% in Vojvodina waslagging behind the 3.8 measured in the territory of Trianon-Hungary slightly overtaking S-Slovakia (1.1%) and N-Transylvania (1.1%).11 The reason of the small proportions and badindicators can be found partly in the physical geographical background and in the Yugoslavianindustrial policy. While in 1913 there were 27 thousand industrial workers in the Vojvodina, in1941 only 13.5 thousand was conscribed. Although the industrial output increased by 50%within these years at current prices, this increase was eliminated by the constant inflation.Indeed a 10% decrease was measured at real prices (170 and 97 million P). However, percapita outputs were still improving due to the decrease in number of workers. Averageindustrial production per factory was only 540 thousand P compared to the Hungarian 1200

thousand P.

12

In Vojvodina there were 460 factories in 1942, while in N-Transylvania there were 600,in S-Slovakia 290. Within a year more than 140 new factories were installed in Bács-BodrogCounty, which is enormous, compared to the 20 in South-Slovakia (with similar populationnumber) and 60 in Transylvania.

8 Gyula Mike, Magyarország sportegyesületei 1941-ben, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1943/4, 187.9 Gy. Mike, op.cit. 189. o. Sports clubs in Vojvodina had averagely 100 members, while Hungarian clubs 200.10 An unique phenomenon, that the proportion of women exceeded 20% in the modern towns of the western part of thecountry, while in Satu Mare, Kecskemét and Debrecen, zones of agricultural townships it remained under 10%, such asin the Vojvodina, referring to a more traditional society, where women were more subordinated.11 Sándor Farkasfalvy, A gyáripar 1941-ben, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1942/9. 564.12 S. Farkasfalvy, op.cit. 570.


9/18

103

Table 5. Regional increase of industrial factories and invested capital (1941-1942)

factories

(1941*)

factories

(1942)

growth

pieces**

increase

in %

increaseof capital

investedin %

increase ofoutput at

nominal prices

increase of industrialoutput measured to

invested capital1941-1942

Hungary total5070

(5190)5650 120 2% -2% +25% 127%

Vojvodina* 318 460 142 44% -21% +36% 172%S-Slovakia 290 310 20 7% +20% +44% 120%

N-Transylvania 600 660 60 10% +9% +33% 122%Transcarpathia 90 130 40 44% -10% +44% 160%

*Bács-Bodrog County ** only for Trianon-HungaryCalculated from: Sándor Farkasfalvy, A gyáripar 1941-ben, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1942/9.

It is also important to note, that in Vojvodina (Bács-Bodrog County) the average size of

factories did not exceed 45 employees (the same as in S-Slovakia and 60 in Transylvania), butwithin the Trianon borders it was over 100. The reason of this is, that 16% of the plants were bricklayer-factories, 17% belonged to mill-industry, 9% to energy-supply (exceeding theHungarian average), which required limited labour force. The 4.7 million working days inVojvodina and the 92.6 million P capital only represented 3.7 and 3.3 % of the country total. 13

Table 6. Regional features of industrial consumption and output in 1941

1941Trianon

HungaryS-Slovakia %* Transcarpathia %* N-Transylvania %* Vojvodina %*

aver-

age

number of factories per 100 km2

4,4 2,4 55 0,7 16 1,3 30 2,8 64 3,1

number of workers per 100 000 person 3800 1460 38 650 17 1150 301330 35 2840

invested averagecapital (1000 P) per factories

550 406 74 430 78 225 41 290 53 490

average size per factory

89 58 65 66 74 54 61 42 47 80

working hours per factory

3320 3460 104 2440 73 2730 82 2740 83 3220

HP 480 340 71 178 37 212 44 230 48 430

average coalconsumption in q

per factories15140 7400 49 3800 25 2440 16 5220 34 11950

energy consumptionin 1000 kWh

266 344 129 75 28 55 21 50 19 210

industrial output perfactory in 1000 P

1230 890 72 500 41 500 41 540 44 1080

* compared to Trianon-HungaryCalculated from: S. Farkasfalvy, op.cit. 571.

13 S. Farkasfalvy, op.cit. 570-576.


10/18

104

Factories of Vojvodina lacked sufficient capital: while in Trianon-Hungary thecapital/factory value reached 571 thousand P, in Vojvodina only 500 thousand P for the new(290 thosuand for old) investments after 1941. Considering mechanized energy installed,

Vojvodina gave only 2.5% of the total HP of industry, which is a small value compared to proportion of population, while regarding the consumption of eletricity Vojvodina constitutedonly 1.5% of the total.

Economic reintegration and reorganization in Vojvodina took time, however the small-scale industry had several advantages: their demand on raw material was low (4.5% of thetotal, 150 million P) compared to the population, such as the demand on fuel. Labour wageswere similar (54-56 fillérs per hour) in Vojvodina and in the country.

Industrial production reached 7 billion P in the country in 1942, which meant a 25%increase, from which 5%, 265 million P was generated by the incorporation of Vojvodina. Thelatter showed a 70 million P (36%) increase in output between 1941-1942. This increase was

smaller than in S-Slovakia (44%) and similar to N-Transylvania (33%). This number seems to be impressive, but after adjusting the current values to the inflation, the 25% shrinks to 8% (5%in Trianon-Hungary and somewhat higher in the peripheries). Per capita output hardly hit 50%of the state average in Vojvodina (1 million persons for 265 million P output compared to 14million and 6735 million), although the output in absolute numbers was higher than in S-Slovakia (171 million P) and similar to industrial production in N-Transylvania (275 millionP).14

However, from two aspects the industry in Vojvodina is worth further mentioning. Oneis the fact that the value of industrial output compared to (the shortage of) invested capital inVojvodina was among the highest in Hungary in 1941-1942. The other is, that small-scaleindustry and crafts were more important than factories in this periphery.

Vojvodina represented an important territory for Hungary regarding small enterprises.The 15700 small enterprises located in Bács-Bodrog county constituted 6% of the total of thecountry, resulting the 2nd place among counties (Somogy county in the 3rd position reachedonly 3.7%). Cumulative value of production reached 100 million P in 1940, also resulting the2nd place with 5% of the total output in the country following the huge Pest-Solt-Pilis-Kiskuncounty. The production value per workshop was also high, reaching 6300 P, followingEsztergom county which was ranked the producing 7000 P per workshop and Pest-Solt-Pilis-Kiskun with 6700 P, overtaking Nógrád (6100 P), Bereg (6300 P) and Gömör (5500P/workshop).15 This also refers to a self-organizing, self-sustaining viable local civil society.The Hungarian average meant 4800 P and 1.1 workers per workshop in 1930 this increased by1940 to 6000 P and 1.5 persons. Number of workshops increased by 16% in Trianon-Hungary,

number of workers by 66%, the value of output by 50%.Regarding the spatial distribution of workshops 1600 were enumerated in Subotica,

1500 in Novi Sad (as in Kecskemét), 640 in Sombor, while in Szeged it was 2800, in Pécs2000, but in Baja (county seat of mutilated Bács-Bodrog in Hungary) only 1000. Considering

14 S. Farkasfalvy, op.cit. 563. 578-581.15 Zoltán Szalay, Az 1941. évi népszámlálással kapcsolatban végrehajtott általános iparstatisztika első eredményei,Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1943/5-6, 277.


11/18

105

the value of output Subotica led by 16 million P, followed by Novi Sad with 15.5 million P andZombor by 5.5 million P. In Szeged this value ranged up to 30 million P, in Pécs 19 million inKecskemét 21 million. Thus, by dividing the values of the two aforementioned indicatorsindustrial output per workshop was 10000 P in Subotica and Novi Sad, such as in Szeged and

Pécs, and 8500 in Sombor. It was Csongrád that showed the largest concentration ofworkshops, although Bács-Bodrog had more towns at higher hierarchical level.16

Summarising the role of large- and small-scale industry, the 20500 workshops andfactories in Vojvodina (7.8%) were proportional compared to population number. Regardingthe peripheries returned, the number of workshops per 1000 person (20) was the greatest inBács-Bodrog county (11 in the less industrialized N-Transylvania and 14 in S-Slovakia), andequaled with the Hungarian average (without the capital city it was 19). Production efficiency(per one person employed in industry) fell below S-Slovakia, while overtaking N-Transylvania.The total industrial production exceeded 330 million P (5%), the same was in N-Transylvaniaand 270 million P in S-Slovakia. 20 thousand or 40% of industrial workers worked for large-scale industry (factories) in Vojvodina, while in N-Transylvania and S-Slovakia it was over50%.17 Lacking industrial raw materials the structure of industry in Vojvodina was similar tothe Hungarian and differed from the heavy industry in N-Transylvania or S-Slovakia. It meantthat owing to the change of rule Vojvodina had to face with increasing competition comparedto its position in royal Yugoslavia.

Table 7. The significance of small-scale industry, trade and commerce and its territorialconcentration in Vojvodina in 1942

towns and

countiesworkshops

output

(million P)

output per

worksop

in P

trading

shops

value of

trade

(million P)

persons

employed

in trade

trade value

per employed

in P

shops per

1000

person

value of

trade per

shop

Subotica 1594 16 10000 534 25 1120 22000 5,3 47000

Sombor 640 5,5 8594 223 12,3 519 24000 7 50000

Novi Sad 1472 15,5 10633 636 60 1913 30000 10,4 95000

Baja 1030 6,8 6600 394 18 672 26000 12,2 46000

Pécs 1987 19,5 9750 978 43 2016 21500 13,4 45000

Szeged 2785 29 10357 1190 54 2480 21600 8,7 46000

Kecskemét 1511 21 14000 665 37,3 1327 28000 7,6 41000

Bács-Bodrog

15743(25%)*

98,8 63004119

(40%)*79,5

(65%)*5200(50%)

15000 5,9 19000

Baranya7556

(25%)*24,7 3300

1627(40%)*

36,8(60%)*

1856(55%)

18000 5,3 23000

Csongrád 2956(45%)*

13,2 4500 1151(50%)*

27,3(70%)*

1420(66%)

19000 7,1 24000

Hungary 256 000 1866 7300 110 100 5075 188 000 27 000 7,5 46 000

* in brackets see the proportion of towns compared to county total

16 The hierarchy of cities in Bács-Bodrog was controversial. Subotica had the greatest population number, Novi Sadwas the most developed, Sombor owned the central functions as county seat.17 Szalay, 272-280.


12/18

106

Calculated from: Zoltán Szalay, Az 1941. évi népszámlálással kapcsolatban végrehajtott általánosiparstatisztika első eredményei, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1943/5-6. 277. and 487.Table 8. Regional disparities in small- and large scale industries (altogether) in 1942

units per

1000 persons

units (%)

large-

scalefactories

large-

scaleunits

to total

industrial

workersaltogether

(%)

small-

scaleworkers

(%)

withinthe

region

total

production(in million P)

propor-

tion tocountry

total (%)

output per

industrialworkers

(in P)

S-Slovakia 14 15 000 5,3% 310 2,2% 36 000 4% 17 000 50% 270 4% 7500

N-Tran-sylvania

11,5 29 000 11,2% 660 3,3% 67 000 7,5% 30 000 46% 316 5% 4800

Trans-carpathia

5,5 4 000 1,5% 8 000 1% 45 0,7% 5500

Vojvodina 20 20 000 7,8% 460 2,3% 50 000 5,7% 30 000 60% 328 5% 6500

country totalwith

Budapest19 263 000 100% 5650 100% 880 000 100% 462 000 53% 6581 100% 7500

Calculated from: Z. Szalay, op.cit. 280.

Speaking about trade and commerce the number of shops increased by 55% in Trianon-Hungary between 1930-1940, while the number of employed increased from 52 thousand to116 thousand (+122%). 75% of shops and 80% of employees and 86% of trade value fell to theterritory of Trianon-Hungary (which gives less than 66% of the territory) owing to thedistorting effect of the capital city, Budapest. Vojvodina represented 5% of the shops andemployees, while the four times greater N-Transylvania gave only 9.5%. The value of tradewas 173 million P constituting only 3.5% of the country total (N-Transylvania gave 4.7%).Average value of trade per shops was 30 000 P in Vojvodina (the same as in Hungary withoutBudapest), 35 000 in S-Slovakia, 23 000 P in N-Transylvania. Shop density per 1000inhabitants was also low.18

Table 9. Regional differences in the characteristics of trade in 1940

shops proportion

(%)tradesmen

proportion(%)

value oftrade pershop (P)

total trade (P) proportion

(%)

S-Slovakia 5700 5 9000 5 35 000 200 000 000 4,7

N-Transylvania 10800 9,5 16200 9 23 000 200 000 000 4,7

Vojvodina 5700 5 9000 5 30 000 173 000 000 3,5

total country

with Budapest 110000 100 187000 100 46 000 5 100 000 000 100Calculated from: Zoltán Szalay, Az 1941. évi népszámlálással kapcsolatban végrehajtott általános

kereskedői statisztika első eredményei, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1943/9.

18 Zoltán Szalay , Az 1941. évi népszámlálással kapcsolatban végrehajtott általános kereskedői statisztika elsőeredményei, Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, Budapest 1943/9. 480-481.


13/18

107

Bács-Bodrog was 2nd in the country regarding the number of shops and employees and3rd regarding the value of trade (Vas overtook Vojvodina). The value of trade per shops wasmediocre, Baranya, Bars, Békés, Csongrád overtook Bács-Bodrog. The same was true for shopdensity. Vojvodina’s contribution to the Hungarian economy was largely owing to its great

territorial extent, than to its level of development. Novi Sad had 630, Subotica 530, Sombor220 shops, while in Baja one could find 400, in Pécs 980, in Szeged more than 1200 tradingcompanies. Szeged and Novi Sad (55-60 million P, 1900-2400 persons), Kecskemét andSubotica (24-27 million P, 1200-1300 persons), Baja and Sombor (10-18 million P, 500-600

persons) were at the same level of urban hierarchy based on the value of trade and number ofemployed in the sector. Trade values per employees were similar, but trade value per shopsshowed remarkable differences (Novi Sad, 95 000 P, Subotica, Sombor, Baja 46 000 P),meaning that Novi Sad had larger shops (3 employees per shops, compared to the average 1.7).Here the trade value per shops was twice as much as the country average and five times greaterthan the county avarage. The number of shops here was 10/1000 inhabitants, while in Suboticaand Kecskemét it reached only 5-7.19

3. Conclusion

Summarising our remarks, one may come to the conclusion, that the role of Vojvodina

in the Yugoslavian and Hungarian economy did not alter remarkably with the change of

regime.

Vojvodina 1921-1941 Vojvodina 1941-44

food supplier and exporter food supplier and exporterSerbian colonisation Hungarian colonisationeconomic center – political periphery economic frontier – political peripheryovertaxation, repressions atrocities, distraction of resource surplusesdistorted market - redistributions distorted market – redistributions (war economy)

bureaucratic pressure – new elite bureaucratic pressure – new elite

19 Ibidem.


14/18

108

Gym rooms in Hungary measured in m2 and per 1000 inhabitants.Source: Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, 1943/1. 46.


15/18

109

Number and sectoral distribution of small-scale industrial units in Hungary.Source: Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, 1943/5-6. 278. p


16/18

110

Value and sectoral distribution of trade in Hungary in 1940. Source: Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, 1943/9. 491.


17/18

111

Periodicals in Hungary. Source: Magyar Statisztikai Szemle, 1943


18/18

112

ГАБОР ДЕМЕТЕР

ЕКОНОМИЈА И ДРУШТВО У ВОЈВОДИНИ

У ВРЕМЕ МАЂАРСКЕ ВЛАСТИ 1941-1945

Сажетак

Овај рад истражује утицај мађарске власти на локално друштво у регионалномконтексту, користећи методе друштвене географије, базирајући се на изазове који су седогодили структуралним променама и интеграцијом у нову економску и образовнуструктуру. Како би измерили улогу Војводине у мађарском економском систему и стопу

развоја друштвено-економског живота, на основу мађарских статистичких података из1941, неколико варијабли је коришћено за поређење нивоа развоја градова Војводине и

Мађарске. Такви су били подаци о броју периодике која је изашла, број спортскихклубова у односу на самоорганизовање и самофинансирање од стране заједнице, илипродуктивност малих предузећа, капитал који је инвестиран, итд.

Војводина је представљала значајан део Мађарске што се тиче малих предузећа.Уку пно 15 700 малих предузећа у Бачко-бодрошкој жупанији чинили су 6% укупногброја у земљи, резултирајући другим местом међу жупанијама. Укупна вредностпроизводње је била 100 милиона пенги, такође други резултат у земљи. Продуктивностпо глави је била такође велика, 6300 П, док је Острогонска жупанија била прва са 7000 Ппо глави. Више од 40 периодичних публикација је излазило у Бачко-бодрошкојжупанији, док је у суседној жупанији Чонград било 40, а у Барањи само 19. Укупно 39спортских клубова ставају жупанију на треће место (Барања 9, Чонград 10, Хевеш 32,

Бекеш 47). Од укупног броја 26 је настало између два рата. Истраживање о образовном систему даје добар поглед у захтеве локалног

друштва као и у систем преференција и аспирација централне политичке воље. Локалнаадминистрација била је препуна службеника који су пристизали из Мађарске, чак је инедостатак учитеља који говоре мађарски био решен упућивањем њих 1300 у Војводинуда би се смириле нарастајуће тензије средњег сталежа у Мађарској. То је изазвалонезадовољство и разочарење међу припадницима локалне елите. Од 98 000 ученикаосновних школа њих 58% нису говорили мађарски језик, што је коинцидирало саетничком припадношћу, док је ученика који су говорили мађарски 1942-1943. годинебило више у односу на етничку пропорцију.

Кључне речи: Војводина 1941-44, друштво, економија, интеграција, развој,образовање, централна управа.

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marija-pokrajac
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Economy and Society in Vojvodina During

Documents